Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T22:28:26.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Interpretation of Existential There

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Leiv Egil Breivik
Leiv Egil Breivik*
Affiliation:
University of Tromsø, Norway
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines John Lyons' version of the widely postulated theory that existential there derives synchronically from a locative adverbial. It is argued that Lyons' hypothesis (and by implication other synchronic locative-based analyses of existential there) is false. An alternative analysis is offered, in which it is claimed that existential there is an NP, inserted for syntactic and pragmatic reasons. Diachronic and crosslinguistic evidence is cited in support of this view.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , March 1981, pp. 1 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Akmajian, Adrian, and Heny, Frank. 1975. An introduction to the principles of transformational syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Allan, Keith. 1971. A note on the source of there in existential sentences. Foundations of Language. 7. 1–18.Google Scholar
Allan, Keith. 1972. In reply to ‘There 1, there 2‘. Journal of Linguistics 8. 119–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, John M. 1971. The grammar of case: Towards a localistic theory. (Cambridge studies in linguistics, 4.) Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, James C. 1973. The two forms of subject inversion in modern French. (Janua linguarum, series practica, 168.) The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1974. Syntactic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1961. Syntactic blends and other matters. Lg. 37.366–81.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and form. (English language series, 11.) London: Longman.Google Scholar
Breivik, Leiv Egil. 1975. The use and non-use of ‘existential there‘ in present-day English. Forum Linguisticum. 7. 57–103.Google Scholar
Breivik, Leiv Egil. 1976. There 1 and there 2: A reply. Anglo-American Forum 5. 29–81.Google Scholar
Breivik, Leiv Egil. 1977. A note on the genesis of existential there. English Studies 58. 334–48.Google Scholar
Breivik, Leiv Egil. 1978. Existential sentences revisited. Papers from the 4th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, ed. by Gregersen, Kirsten et al., 235–40. Odense: University Press.Google Scholar
Daneš, František. 1964. A three-level approach to syntax. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1. 225–40.Google Scholar
Dudley Stamp, L. (ed.) 1963. Geography for today. Book I: The British Isles. 6th ed. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Erdmann, Peter. 1976. There sentences in English: A relational study based on a corpus of written texts. (Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaften, 6.) Munich: Tuduv.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T., 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1961. On the communicative value of the Modern English finite verb. Brno Studies in English 3. 79–100.Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1964a. On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1. 267–80.Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1964b. From comparative word order studies. Brno Studies in English 4. 111–28.Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1966. Non-thematic subjects in contemporary English. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 2. 239–56.Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1974. Some aspects of the Czechoslovak approach to problems of functional sentence perspective. Papers on functional sentence perspective, ed. by Daneš, FrantiŠek, 11–37. Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
Fries, Charles C. 1940. On the development of the structural use of word-order in Modern English. Lg. 16.199–208.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. In Li, 149–88.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy (ed.) 1979a. Syntax and semantics, 12: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy (ed.). 1979b. From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy. In Givón 1979a:81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1979. Rethinking linguistics diachronically. Lg. 55.275–90.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1974. Targets and syntactic change. (Janua linguarum, series minor, 186.) The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higham, Roger. 1972. The South Country. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Lyle. 1975. The English existential. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 12.) Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Remarkable subjects in Malagasy. In Li, 247–301.Google Scholar
Kimball, John P. 1973. The grammar of existence. Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 262–70.Google Scholar
Kirkwood, Henry XV. 1969. Remarks on existential-locative and possessive-locative sentences in English and German. Philologica Pragensia 12. 230–37.Google Scholar
Kirsner, Robert S. 1976. On the subjectless ‘pseudo-passive’ in standard Dutch and the semantics of background agents. In Li, 385–415.Google Scholar
Kohonen, Viljo. 1978. On the development of English word order in religious prose around 1000 and 1200 a.D.: A quantitative study of word order in context. (Publications of the Research Institute of the Åbo Akademi Foundation, 38.) Åbo.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1971. The position of locatives in existential sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 333–78.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1975. Three perspectives in the functional approach to syntax. Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, 276–336. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1974. Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan. 1975. A communicative grammar of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. (ed.) 1976. Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N., and Thompson, Sandra A. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Li, 457–89.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1967. A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences. Foundations of Language 3. 390–96.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968a. Existence, location, possession and transitivity. Logic, methodology and philosophy of science, III, ed. by Rootselaar, B. van & Staal, J. F., 495–504. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968b. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1975. Deixis as the source of reference. Formal semantics of natural language, ed. by Keenan, Edward L., 61–83. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. 2 vols. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary Lee. 1974. Existential sentences in English. MIT dissertation. [Reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1976.]Google Scholar
Offord, M. Y. (ed.) 1971. The book of the Knight of the Tower, translated by William Caxton. (EETS, supplementary series, 2.) London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph. 1965. Descriptive statement and serial relationship. Lg. 41.205–17.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey; and Svartvik, Jan. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rando, Emily, and Napoli, Donna Jo. 1978. Definites in there-sentences. Lg. 54.300–313.Google Scholar
Sampson, Anthony. 1965. Anatomy of Britain today. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey. 1972. There 1, there 2. Journal of Linguistics 8. 111–17.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. 1977a. Foundations of syntactic theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. 1977b. Motivations for exbraciation in Old English. Mechanisms of syntactic change, ed. by Li, Charles N., 291–314. Austin: University of Texas Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, A. I. (ed.) 1930. The apologye of Syr Thomas More, knyght. (EETS, original series, 180.) London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1974. Topics, subjects, and word order: From SXV to SVX via TVX. Historical linguistics, ed. by Anderson, John M. & Jones, Charles, 1. 339–76. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Walters, Ingeborg O. 1974. The there be construction, I. Norwegian Journal of Linguistics. 28. 131–206.Google Scholar
Walters, Ingeborg O. 1975. The there be construction, II. Norwegian Journal of Linguistics. 29. 35–100.Google Scholar